Fair and Balanced
I get dinged every now and then for being “one sided” or other things to the same effect. It all rolls off by now. First of all, I don’t believe there was ever any requirement for me to be fair or balanced. I don’t believe in the concept “fair” anyway, not that I don’t believe in being fair, just that I don’t believe anything is fair. So, get over it.
Balanced in itself is kind of a flawed concept. It implies that whatever reality is, you’re gonna edit it so it comes out equal on both sides. Now that’s just wrong. I acknowledge that there are positives and negatives to almost anything you might name. Very rarely do they really equal or balance out.
The people who say I’m one sided obviously do not read everything here or don’t pay attention to what they’re reading. I mean look at the “What can you say about software you can’t talk about?” post. I’m not supposed to say anything, yet if I say anything at all, it’s positive about 2013. And then I get dinged for being “anti-“. I’ve gone out of my way on many occasions to talk about the potential benefits of the cloud and CAD on the cloud. I even in one post tried to defend SW’s point of view.
Anyway, I’m not concerned that some people think I’m “anti-“whatever or one sided or unbalanced or unfair. I think it’s equally unbalanced to never acknowledge what’s wrong. It’s completely unfair to hold a corporation to a lower standard than you’d hold another individual to. It’s totally “anti-” to think that it’s ok for a corporation to do things that are actually detrimental to their own customers.
If you want positive stuff about SolidWorks, read my books. A thousand pages telling mostly good things about the software. Now that’s unbalanced. For a more realistic view, read both the blog and the book.
@Rick McWilliams
The word “accurate” in cad, of course, is relative. It can mean a lot of different things to different industries, different models and different people. I’m just already glad they didn’t fall into the trap Pro/E fell into with their dynamic model gap tolerance depending on the model size. It just turns into a nightmare so quickly for data exchange.
I am on the side that thinks that feels that Solidworks can and should be improved. Another side seems to think that Solidworks is beyond that.
Informative; It would be nice if Solidworks documentation actually described the geometry that a feature might generate. User discoverable is a sad state. I am thinking of the broccoli shaped lofts and sweeps. Can Solidworks generate an accurate ruled surface?
I believe the purpose of a blog is to be informative and critical. Actually my comment about the one-sidedness of this blog had nothing to do with you, but rather the comments which follow, which are overwhelmingly one sided. Surely not everyone agrees with you?
hmm,.. V6 “anti-Matt-er” ? 8^)
“I think it’s equally unbalanced to never acknowledge what’s wrong. It’s completely unfair to hold a corporation to a lower standard than you’d hold another individual to. It’s totally “anti-” to think that it’s ok for a corporation to do things that are actually detrimental to their own customers.”
Matt you have hit the nail on the head. As one who has been verbally bashed for my stance on the use of EULA and the use of invasive software by CAD vendors (one in particular) I have only pity for those who choose to sweep the unpalatable under the carpet.
I find what you do very pointed & balanced for the reasons you state and would be disappointed if you were to stop or become one sided.
It is worth noting many CAD publications have vanished; a large part of the reason for their demise is cloaked in the fact, no matter what CAD software, hardware or services they tested or trialed glowing reports were written, bad point never highlighted. 5 Star ratings were often given to half baked products. Couple the un-balanced reporting and product reviews with the publications failure to adequatly hightlight problems within the industry, EULA etc. and you can see how the sugar coating by “fan boys” destroys.
Improving “things” it what many of us do with CAD and we expect our vendors and “reporter” collegues to be like minded, with the same goals: to not highlight problems or to not warn of pending issues and dangers is irresponsible.
Thanks for your considerable effort.
Matt, I think you have a very “objective” blog. A little “biased” toward SolidWorks, but that’s normal (whatever “normal is). I have yet to see a piece of software that doesn’t have its issues and probably never will – it could be very simple software – then its issue would be it is too simple and not “robust” enough. Many moons ago ( about 18 years to be exact) – I was tasked with choosing the “mid-range” solid modeler we would sell as a Value Added Reseller. I looked at the new kid on the block “SolidWorks” first. I also looked at Inventor (in beta at the time), IronCAD, Eureka Gold (later on Think 3) MicroStation Modeler, Pro-E and a couple of others that I have now forgotten. Quite frankly, I had not heard of Solid Edge (something we hear a lot – though not so often now) – but did notice that it was purchased from Intergraph by Unigraphics (Intergraph, seeing the success of SW and approached UG about leasing the parasolid kernel) at which time UG purchased Solid Edge from Intergraph. That’s when I knew it would become a player. At version 6, they were starting a few years behind SW, but caught up rather quickly. If only the marketing and messaging had followed suit. My personal belief is that both Solid Works and Solid Edge are very good products – my decision came down to the fact that the “core technology” of both products belonged to the Solid Edge camp – and that’s what I based my decision on – although I do now believe that Solid Edge is a superior product. I’m an old “board man” and definitely not a proficient CAD person, but often wonder why people will purchase SW without even looking at SE (I know perception has a lot to do with it). When it comes down to it, I opted to choose the product that I thought would have the best long term future. I fondly call SW the “Coca Cola” of the mid-range modelers – just like people saying “gimme a coke” in a generic sense. I certainly enjoy the posts on this site and find them very informative. I really like Rick’s term – “Gun to your head or balls in a vise”. I also believe that when companies put their customers in a position to think that way – it is a sad commentary on how a customer should be treated.
I think that all of us would love to be Solidworks fanboys. Solidworks is a remarkable program that has good and bad attributes. The good corporate citizen, say nothing bad even when it sucks, is the new politically correct approach. It is really only appropriate when “they” have a gun to your head or your balls in a vice.
Suck it up Solidworks, your software is useful but has at least 100 serious geometry bugs. Don’t deny them, fix them, or at least address them. If Solidworks would promise to fix 3 geometry bugs I would happily provide a list.